Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * ACT Bar clears former DPP head Shane Drumgold of misconduct

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[Festerz]

I wonder what story is being referred to here?

 

[Festerz]

Will the outcome of this appeal likely to be finalised before the trial in Toowoomba commences? I wonder if that has factored in.

Yes- it has more than likely been factored in.

As I've mentioned in this thread previously, IMHO, the potential impact it might have on his upcoming Toowoomba rape trial has been a key factor on how Bruce Lehrmann has handled the timing and handling of his appeal process to his disastrous (from his perspective) failed Federal Court defamation trial.

If nothing else, it adds weight to the strong likelihood of the Toowoomba Magistrate determining that Lehrmann's rape trial be decided by Judge alone rather than in front of a jury.

Given that it is now more than three years since Lehrmann allegedly twice r*ped his victim early hours of October 10, 2021 in Toowoomba, any further delay in Lehrmann facing court would be intolerable for his victim. Setting aside the start date for his upcoming criminal trial for a civil matter in another jurisdiction would be publicly unacceptable. Having a judge-only trial for his rape trial in Qld would mitigate the suggestion that the outcome of the Federal Court appeal process would unfairly influence judgement in either or both.

Obviously, I have no insider knowledge but can only hope that his next criminal trial commences as planned in coming days where procedural matters, including applications for the matter of judge only v jury will be processed.

 

[FIGJAM]

I wonder what story is being referred to here?

You can see the Horseshoe Theory in full effect based on the Trumpian responses that thread.

 

[CM86]

There was definitely a "cover-up". Of a potential "party" as described above.

The issue is that people conflate this cover-up of a probable party (ie. get rid of bottles, condom wrappers, potential drug residue etc.), as also incorporating getting rid of evidence of a 'probable' sexual assault. It's a peculiar leap of assumption that I'm certain that 99.9% of the population would not have made at that time.

I don't know if you're being deliberately dishonest, or if you're so ideologically captured that you actually believe what you post.

Yeah, it was probably just a party in the highly secured office of the Minister for Defense. Typical nightshift to clean up from the office party, collecting bottles, condom wrappers, drug residue etc. SOP! Make sure to wipe down any highly classified files to avoid pages sticking together.
And sure, only two people gained entrance, but it takes two to tango, baby!

And sure, only one of them left hurriedly.
And sure the only other person was found naked and comatose.
But that's just how wild these parties get in the office of the Minister for Defense!

I am 100% behind all of Justice Lee's findings

You sure are, right behind them. Trying to shove them into any gaps you can, regardless of not fitting.

You 'quote' Lee's findings like a cut out ransom note.

You can see the Horseshoe Theory in full effect based on the Trumpian responses that thread.

The Horseshoe Theory is bullshit, for very unserious people who chew crayons and eat glue.
It's like saying that because 'the left' and 'the right' both oppose Islam, they're the same.

Except 'the left' oppose Islam due to a general opposition to religion and discriminatory practices.
While 'the right' oppose Islam because it isn't Christianity, and they don't like 'brown people'.


It's like saying a doctor and a torturer are the same because they're both trying to keep you alive.

You can see the Horseshoe Theory in full effect based on the Trumpian responses that thread.

Did you even read your link??

Matching the neo-Nazi with the radical left leads to the legitimization of far-right ideology and practices.​

​

It's alllllll starting to make sense now...

 

[CM86]

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't know if you're being deliberately dishonest, or if you're so ideologically captured that you actually believe what you post.

Yeah, it was probably just a party in the highly secured office of the Minister for Defense. Typical nightshift to clean up from the office party, collecting bottles, condom wrappers, drug residue etc. SOP! Make sure to wipe down any highly classified files to avoid pages sticking together.
And sure, only two people gained entrance, but it takes two to tango, baby!

And sure, only one of them left hurriedly.
And sure the only other person was found naked and comatose.
But that's just how wild these parties get in the office of the Minister for Defense!

I get that we can all piece everything together with hindsight to be 'slap in the face obvious', but in real time, out of the many things they could have been up to (drinking, having consensual sex, doing drugs, stealing sensitive defence data etc.), it's still low on the probability scale.

All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.

Expecting people to have assumed that out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of after hour drinks over the years at PH, that this was going to be the one with a sexual assault attached to it is, as I've said, a huge leap.

The notes from the security guards basically confirmed that they thought there was probably drinking and consensual sex and that Higgins was just drunk. It's not unreasonable for people to have assumed that at that time that the odds of an assault having happened would be low.

Anyway, I'm happy to change my opinion if Schaefer's small team of "elite" researchers have uncovered anyone who has made the assumption of a potential sexual assault and then sent in Mr Wolf / Dexter to clean up the crime scene.

 

[Festerz]

The Horseshoe Theory is bullshit,

False Equivalence - cow dung is real.

You 'quote' Lee's findings like a cut out ransom note.

Glorious and spot on.

 

[Underarrest_]

I get that we can all piece everything together with hindsight to be 'slap in the face obvious', but in real time, out of the many things they could have been up to (drinking, having consensual sex, doing drugs, stealing sensitive defence data etc.), it's still low on the probability scale.

All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.

Expecting people to have assumed that out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of after hour drinks over the years at PH, that this was going to be the one with a sexual assault attached to it is, as I've said, a huge leap.

The notes from the security guards basically confirmed that they thought there was probably drinking and consensual sex and that Higgins was just drunk. It's not unreasonable for people to have assumed that at that time that the odds of an assault having happened would be low.

Anyway, I'm happy to change my opinion if Schaefer's small team of "elite" researchers have uncovered anyone who has made the assumption of a potential sexual assault and then sent in Mr Wolf / Dexter to clean up the crime scene.

‘All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.’

I feel that’s where this all fell apart.
Receiving I’m ‘ok’ from someone who is passed out on a couch, naked doesn’t cut the chase for a ‘welfare check.’ Security reported the incident up the line but there was no, under what you would find in any policies or procedures of any workplace a ‘welfare check,’ by those who should have had concerns.
If we put the (alledged rape aside) Brittany was left in a vulnerable position and at risk of a possible further ‘incident’ (medical or other,) by being left in that state. IMO.

 

[BFew]

My initial reaction to who this might be was "Rick Morton" and https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/

Rick has just published "Mean Streak" (about Robodebt) https://amzn.asia/d/haPP1og

 

[FIGJAM]

‘All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.’

I feel that’s where this all fell apart.
Receiving I’m ‘ok’ from someone who is passed out on a couch, naked doesn’t cut the chase for a ‘welfare check.’ Security reported the incident up the line but there was no, under what you would find in any policies or procedures of any workplace a ‘welfare check,’ by those who should have had concerns.
If we put the (alledged rape aside) Brittany was left in a vulnerable position and at risk of a possible further ‘incident’ (medical or other,) by being left in that state. IMO.

I don't disagree with that to be honest. There are plenty of 'learnings' (FKA 'lessons') from this whole incident.

Nikola leaving her there at the 4.30am check in to allow her her dignity (paraphrasing) was for me not something that I would have done.

The second welfare check that got a verbal check of positivity from Higgins was forgivable.

If I was Fiona Brown, I'd have probed a lot harder at the initial meeting with Lehrmann and Higgins and then at the second meeting on the Thursday with Higgins after there was an inference of the fat turd "being on top of me".

But ultimately, what you, I or [insert regular poster from this thread] claim that we would have done, is irrelevant and sometimes egotistical (including myself here, as I assume that I would have probed harder than Brown, or done better with the 4.30am check i....but what if I didn't in reality?).

What we need to understand is that people within this saga have make decisions in real time that are based on the information made available to them at that time.

Some of those decisions will, in hindsight, be sub-optimal. And that's perfectly normal!

At the end of it all, the 'cover-up' focussed security guards, working in cahoots with the DPS, working in cahoots with the incumbent government, who were negatively influencing the AFP to make a young junior staffer to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint, is fanciful. That is the ultimate "cover-up narrative" pushed by Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson and Maiden, that is pretty much certainly incorrect based on the evidence presented at three trials now.

 

[Kurve]

My initial reaction to who this might be was "Rick Morton" and https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/

Rick has just published "Mean Streak" (about Robodebt) https://amzn.asia/d/haPP1og

Could be and "Mean Streak" is a good title for the cruelty of Robodebt.

Lee's judgement where he states "As we will also see, when examined properly and without partiality, the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts, but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies – trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke."

Yet, I can't find Stefanic of DPS or Butler as DOS who objected to Reynold's office being cleaned before the AFP investigated, mentioned anywhere in there.

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't disagree with that to be honest. There are plenty of 'learnings' (FKA 'lessons') from this whole incident.

Nikola leaving her there at the 4.30am check in to allow her her dignity (paraphrasing) was for me not something that I would have done.

The second welfare check that got a verbal check of positivity from Higgins was forgivable.

If I was Fiona Brown, I'd have probed a lot harder at the initial meeting with Lehrmann and Higgins and then at the second meeting on the Thursday with Higgins after there was an inference of the fat turd "being on top of me".

But ultimately, what you, I or [insert regular poster from this thread] claim that we would have done, is irrelevant and sometimes egotistical (including myself here, as I assume that I would have probed harder than Brown, or done better with the 4.30am check i....but what if I didn't in reality?).

What we need to understand is that people within this saga have make decisions in real time that are based on the information made available to them at that time.

Some of those decisions will, in hindsight, be sub-optimal. And that's perfectly normal!

At the end of it all, the security guards, working in cahoots with the DPS, working in cahoots with the incumbent government, who were negatively influencing the AFP to make a young junior staffer to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint, is fanciful. That is the ultimate "cover-up narrative" pushed by Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson and Maiden, that is pretty much certainly incorrect based on the evidence presented at three trials now.

I don’t think it’s what should have been done but rather commonsense or duty of care and certainly needed to be followed up as soon as security reported it up the chain, long before the first meeting with Brittany. The cover up, I guess that comes from no ‘welfare check’ being done aside from security officers asking if B was ok and then the cleaning the office.
I do ask myself if the question of B being made to make a choice would even be an issue if she was given an opportunity to be supported that morning rather than go home and cry in bed all weekend and force herself back to work. Can this be proven as a cover up, I don’t know, but certainly leaves questions.